Thread: My Heart is Breaking

Friends, I am struck by the hollowness of Dispensational theology, at least as taught by some. I should know by now that it is faulty, but it truly hurts me when something this erroneous is believed by Christians. I was in a conversation with Scott Aniol, a graduate of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and an influential Fundamentalist conference speaker, and we were discussing the faith of Old Testament saints. After some miscommunications, we clarified the issue. Here's how the conversation ended (with slight editing for clarity).

Originally Posted by Charlie

1. Is there any definite unchanging content of saving faith, other than its being directed toward Yahweh?

2. Is saving faith necessarily Messianic, that is, believing that personal sin will be/was dealt with by a Messiah?

I answer yes to both. Really, #2 is my answer to #1. If you cannot affirm #2, then to my perspective, that is "multiple ways of salvation" even if professed otherwise. One cannot establish a consistent Biblical basis for why man should be justified by any sort of faith. If there is no Christ in the faith, it makes the OT religion an essentially different religion from ours.

Originally Posted by Scott

1. No.
2. No.

I would suggest, my brother, that you are naively ignoring the nature of progressive revelation and reading NT revelation back into the OT.

Now that's just...sad. Most Dispensational laypeople are Bible-conscious enough not to go to the lengths that their scholarship goes to.

He apparently ignored Genesis 3.

Ok...
I'm not Seminary trained and don't understand this issue very well.

Can I ask a few questions?

1.) What's the problem with "progressive revelation?" Isn't that what actually happened?

2.) Can you give me the overall primer on what dispensational theology teaches?

3.) Can you give me the nutshell version of why it's wrong?

thanks,
bob

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

He apparently ignored Genesis 3.

As well as Galatians 3.

After several years, a couple things jumped out about dispensationalism. They became clear.

One is that dispensationalism sees an eternal separation of people with some Jewish ethnicity from the Body of Christ (though many, recently, now say they do eventually get together in the state of glory). Think about how incongruous that is with Scripture, particularly as you read through the Book of Acts!

Another is that dispensationalism tends to interpret the New Testament in light of the Old Testament. Reformed Theology, interprets the Old Testament in light of the "last word," the New Testament. So while a natural reading of the Bible for us shows things being clarified and becoming more explicit as Gods' Word goes forward in time, Dispensationalists are limiting the newer to the lesser clarity of the Old. And then, they only do that with "prophecy"- everything else works the way we (reformed) view it.

Originally Posted by rpavich

Ok...
I'm not Seminary trained and don't understand this issue very well.

Can I ask a few questions?

1.) What's the problem with "progressive revelation?" Isn't that what actually happened?

2.) Can you give me the overall primer on what dispensational theology teaches?

3.) Can you give me the nutshell version of why it's wrong?

thanks,
bob

The biggest problem is that God was surprised that the Jews did not accept our Lord Jesus as the Massiah so He (God the Father) had to insert a 'quick fix' by establishing a "Church Age." This is a fact and the athers of the dispensational movement all taught this as fact.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

He apparently ignored Genesis 3.

As well as Galatians 3.

and a host of others... I just always go to Genesis 3 when someone suggests some amorphous "faith in God" that was practiced by the Old Testament faithful. It seems ludicrous to me that any could claim any other (but then we are in a dispensationalism-infested age and nation).

Originally Posted by rpavich

Ok...
I'm not Seminary trained and don't understand this issue very well.

Can I ask a few questions?

1.) What's the problem with "progressive revelation?" Isn't that what actually happened?

Nothing at all is wrong with progressive revelation. However, the Messiah was promised on the day of the Fall. Everything progresses from that promise - so to argue that there was no such thing as "faith in the one to come" strikes at the heart of redemptive history.

The other questions I'll let others tackle as I should really get back to work

I have some acquaintance with Scott Aniol: do you think something by B. B. Warfield would be helpful to him re: progressive revelation and faith in Christ? I think Warfield is highly esteemed by most graduates of Detroit Theological Seminary and Warfield is great on that topic.

Hebrews 11 comes to mind as well.

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

The biggest problem is that God was surprised that the Jews did not accept our Lord Jesus as the Massiah so He (God the Father) had to insert a 'quick fix' by establishing a "Church Age." This is a fact and the athers of the dispensational movement all taught this as fact.

This is not dispensationalism. It is Arminianism. Dispensationalism can be Arminian, but is not necessarily. I don't even know if I'd lump this in with Arminianism necessarily, but maybe more along the lines of Open Theism.

Much of the problem in these discussions is the polarization fostered by either side, if they have any understanding of the other. Must understanding is incomplete, even for those who once "were" of the other persuasion. Just because someone was taught something in a dispensational church does not make it necessarily dispensationalism any more than a Presby church teaching baptismal regeneration represents this perspective for all Presbies. Neither side has a monopoly on abominations and heresies.

Rather than focusing on the different aspects that you perceive in the theological grid, concentrate on the soteriology involved and the implications involved when the very character and attributes of God are in view. If you come at it from this perspective without either forcing a grid nor imposing one then you can start on common ground with a common desire to understand truth together. You can more readily steer the conversation along biblical lines, without bringing in much that can easily cause antagonism. Just be a brother in Christ helping another brother grow their his theological understanding. Each step brings you both closer to the truth as you grow in your understanding through teaching and perhaps through seeing another man's mind in a way you hadn't considered before. Be a blessing through love, gentleness, patience and a true desire to love and understand.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Hebrews 11 comes to mind as well.

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

The biggest problem is that God was surprised that the Jews did not accept our Lord Jesus as the Massiah so He (God the Father) had to insert a 'quick fix' by establishing a "Church Age." This is a fact and the athers of the dispensational movement all taught this as fact.

This is not dispensationalism. It is Arminianism. Dispensationalism can be Arminian, but is not necessarily. I don't even know if I'd lump this in with Arminianism necessarily, but maybe more along the lines of Open Theism.

To what extent, though, is that statement true (ignoring the bolded parts). The dispensationalism I was taught taught:

1. God offered the kingdom to the Jews.
2. The Jews rejected the Kingdom/Messiah, so the kingdom was postponed.
3. The church was established as a parenthesis in God's plan.

God wasn't surprised by any of this, but (according to what I was taught, based on Eph 3:2-6) the OT Jews would have been very surprised.

Originally Posted by Scott

1. No.
2. No.

I would suggest, my brother, that you are naively ignoring the nature of progressive revelation and reading NT revelation back into the OT.

I guess Christ's death was in vain and righteousness came by the Law after all.

Well, either Paul is right or Scott is right. If Paul is right then I hope Scott also heeds the warning of Gal 1:8.

Originally Posted by rpavich

Ok...
I'm not Seminary trained and don't understand this issue very well.

Can I ask a few questions?

1.) What's the problem with "progressive revelation?" Isn't that what actually happened?

2.) Can you give me the overall primer on what dispensational theology teaches?

3.) Can you give me the nutshell version of why it's wrong?

thanks,
bob

If you are interested, I address #'s 2 and 3 here

I would ask him (humbly, sincerely) how he squares his answer to #2 with: